Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 Mont. 297 - McWilliams v. Clem

McWilliams v. Clem’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2019

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

1001987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Fox v. 7L Bar Ranch Co. · Lowery v. Garfield County · State Ex Rel. Deere & Co. v. District Court of the Fifth Judicial District · Adams v. Dion · Hereford v. Hereford

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Considering the relative ease with which proper notice is given and in light of our precedent that the word “must” is mandatory ... we hold that in order to properly protect the interests of the unrepresented party, the opposing party, as required by the plain language of § 37-61-405, MCA, must require the unrepresented party, by written notice, to appoint another attorney or appear in person.... By providing this clear rule, we do not intend to condone those who simply ignore the judicial process, but instead intend to provide a simple tool for those opposing them to proceed with their cause of action, secure in the knowledge that any judgment in their favor is final. Once proper notice is given, any continued refusal to participate in the proceedings by an unrepresented party may justly result in default judgment or other final judgment against their interests.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The statement of the notary in the certificate that Joan McWilliams had personally appeared before the notary to acknowledge the instrument was false. Based on the false certificate of acknowledgment by the notary, the deed was entitled to be accepted for recording ... The false certificate of acknowledgement was a proximate cause to those subsequent transactions. To hold otherwise would be to frustrate the very purpose of the statutes requiring such certificates.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.